Arkanaut:He just doesn't want the NSA to blow his chances at increasing FB's presence in emerging markets.

You are correct. An article two weeks ago put the loss to American businesses overseas at $35B annually. The invisible hand has already commenced biatch slapping American companies who are in bed with the NSA. All that a global competitor have to say is, "We're not American. We don't give all your data to the spooks." And they'll get the deal done.

Now you know how these guys got so rich. It's "one hand washes the other."The government figured out that the more traffic these boys got, the easier it would be to spy.

JohnnyC: People that complain about privacy while voluntarily posting their information on the internet are farking idiots (and/or assholes).

Well . . . this is basically true. The internet is not a place for unfiltered communication. It's not a place for using your real name, which is why few Fark handles are the user's real name. Internet people understand this implicitly. You wouldn't want a video phone in your home that anyone could dial into and watch you at any moment without you knowing it, right? Although, of course, some people basically have exactly that, and don't realize it . . . .

But there are other issues involved with, say, Facebook. It is possible both for people to be clueless easy victims AND for someone to dickishly exploit them. In fact, it's extremely common. Most crimes have enough blame to go around, although it's mostly concentrated on the perpetrator.

Fbook rapishly exploits its users. And it's really, really not upfront about it. Yes, the media reports on it a fair bit, and, yes, in theory people could tease their way through the user agreements. But let's face it: Fbook's business model is largely built around people not realizing how deeply they're being personally exploited.

Google's really very nearly as bad, nowadays, and in some ways that's worse. Fbook has always been a dick. Google's business philosophy used to specifically revolve around not being a dick. Fbook sucks, but Google has let us down.

Caveat emptor, but that doesn't mean that beyond that it's anything goes. That is not how ethics works.

ladyfortuna:Arkanaut: He just doesn't want the NSA to blow his chances at increasing FB's presence in emerging markets.

I believe one of the articles I read mentioned FB as one of the companies which has cooperated in at least some of the Man's information requests... but I'm sure they were 'all criminals'.

/sigh

Facebook probably didn't have a choice in the matter. A while ago I came across a story of a small ISP that took the government to court over a secret national security letter demanding the e-mails of one of its users (a well-known Wikileaks supporter), and the court ordered the ISP to comply.

ladyfortuna:Arkanaut: He just doesn't want the NSA to blow his chances at increasing FB's presence in emerging markets.

I believe one of the articles I read mentioned FB as one of the companies which has cooperated in at least some of the Man's information requests... but I'm sure they were 'all criminals'.

/sigh

That doesn't surprise me. I wasn't assuming that Zuckerberg wasn't aiding in the spying, I just figured he would probably prefer us not talking about the spying so much.

That said, even before the NSA and the FISA courts, not everyone who gets investigated by law enforcement is necessarily a criminal. Plenty of "persons of interest" get put under surveillance without being charged. It's the lack of supervision and the incredibly breadth of the surveillance that's probably unconstitutional, not necessarily the act of surveillance itself.

Tigger:JohnnyC: People that complain about privacy while voluntarily posting their information on the internet are farking idiots (and/or assholes).

How to avoid having your private information from the public (or government).

1. Don't broadcast your private information via telephone, cellphone, text, email or other form of the internet, telegraph, or any other method of transmission.

2. Don't tell anyone your private information.

That's it. You don't really have to do anything else. You don't need encryption. You just have to keep your private information to yourself.

What an absolutely absurd position. Is it satire or something?

In a weak sense. Domestic surveillance advocates argue "You already put yourself out there online, what are you worried about?" This is a trollish variant. You choose what to publish and what not to publish. This post is a publication. A phone call or non-blast email isn't.

JohnnyC:People that complain about privacy while voluntarily posting their information on the internet are farking idiots (and/or assholes).

How to avoid having your private information from the public (or government).

1. Don't broadcast your private information via telephone, cellphone, text, email or other form of the internet, telegraph, or any other method of transmission.

2. Don't tell anyone your private information.

That's it. You don't really have to do anything else. You don't need encryption. You just have to keep your private information to yourself.

Unfortunately you can't control private information that someone else publishes on line. Want to know where I grew up and where I went to high school? It's not difficult to figure out, despite never having made this information available myself.

You can't avoid your information making its way on-line. If you don't put it there, someone else will.

Weatherkiss:Not that bad, considering Facebook is voluntary and noone is being forced to use its service -- unlike the government which we elect into office and trust to enforce our right to privacy.

That's always such a weak argument for anything... nobody forces us to do anything... we can literally lay on the ground like a slug until we die if we want to. That doesn't mean it's OK for governments to take advantage of people and go against their own rules.

tinyarena:You are correct. An article two weeks ago put the loss to American businesses overseas at $35B annually. The invisible hand has already commenced biatch slapping American companies who are in bed with the NSA. All that a global competitor have to say is, "We're not American. We don't give all your data to the spooks." And they'll get the deal done.

The single most important thing people outside the United States can do to put a stop to illegal NSA spying is convince their friends to boycott US internet companies where ever possible.

I think we all know that Corporate people have more sway over the Feds than flesh and blood people do.

It's important for the Corporate people to feel the pain right about now.

BullBearMS:tinyarena: You are correct. An article two weeks ago put the loss to American businesses overseas at $35B annually. The invisible hand has already commenced biatch slapping American companies who are in bed with the NSA. All that a global competitor have to say is, "We're not American. We don't give all your data to the spooks." And they'll get the deal done.

The single most important thing people outside the United States can do to put a stop to illegal NSA spying is convince their friends to boycott US internet companies where ever possible.

I think we all know that Corporate people have more sway over the Feds than flesh and blood people do.

It's important for the Corporate people to feel the pain right about now.

They're already feeling the pain. Some of the biggest tech companies are now the loudest critics of the NSA.

4tehsnowflakes:Tigger: JohnnyC: People that complain about privacy while voluntarily posting their information on the internet are farking idiots (and/or assholes).

How to avoid having your private information from the public (or government).

1. Don't broadcast your private information via telephone, cellphone, text, email or other form of the internet, telegraph, or any other method of transmission.

2. Don't tell anyone your private information.

That's it. You don't really have to do anything else. You don't need encryption. You just have to keep your private information to yourself.

What an absolutely absurd position. Is it satire or something?

In a weak sense. Domestic surveillance advocates argue "You already put yourself out there online, what are you worried about?" This is a trollish variant. You choose what to publish and what not to publish. This post is a publication. A phone call or non-blast email isn't.

[i1277.photobucket.com image 748x350]

Not to mention the fact that I am doing the choosing on what I want available. If I want to put up pictures of myself wearing a thong while ball gagged with a large woman in leather spanking me... then that is my choice. However, if I limit access to specific people and the NSA or law enforcement in general want to make sure I am not breaking some crime they should have no right to invade my privacy because: "They just want to make sure".

Until we start punishing the law breakers in these Intelligence/Law enforcement roles I don't really see many people having any trust in them or the goverment that gives them free reign.

Kazrath:If I want to put up pictures of myself wearing a thong while ball gagged with a large woman in leather spanking me... then that is my choice. However, if I limit access to specific people and the NSA or law enforcement in general want to make sure I am not breaking some crime they should have no right to invade my privacy because: "They just want to make sure".

The first problem with that example that came to mind is those groups who trade child porn. That's about the only legitimate reason I would object to your statement, however.

ladyfortuna:Kazrath: If I want to put up pictures of myself wearing a thong while ball gagged with a large woman in leather spanking me... then that is my choice. However, if I limit access to specific people and the NSA or law enforcement in general want to make sure I am not breaking some crime they should have no right to invade my privacy because: "They just want to make sure".

The first problem with that example that came to mind is those groups who trade child porn. That's about the only legitimate reason I would object to your statement, however.

I disagree with you there. While it is a crime to trade in CP you still have a right to privacy. (With some rare exceptions) There are probably plenty of things in your home that are either violations that warrant a fine or are potentially criminal in your household. You are basically advocating for the rights of NSA or other law enforcement to have access at will to make sure you are not committing a crime. That is a really really horrible stance and does not bode well for our rights.